OWLS is not equal to c
in [Relativity]
|
Prev: What keeps electrons spinning around their nucleus?
Next: Ballistic Theory, Progress report...Suitable for 5yo Kids
From: Henri Wilson on 26 Aug 2005 17:47 On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:41:03 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:37:05 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: ><snip - no disagreements> >>>> I've just written a program to try to work out how an emission line >>>> would >>>> appear doppler shift according to the huff puff principle. >>>> Light from the middle, would have te maximum shift but light from the >>>> edges >>>> would have none....because the expansion would be normal to LOS. >>>> It turns out that there is a sinusoidal distribution of radial velocity >>>> with >>>> maximum at 45 degrees. >>>> This means that a spectral line would appear broadened from zero to >>>> maximum >>>> with maximum intensity at 1/root2 from the max. >>> >>>Remember there will also be thermal broadening >>>and that the lines are from a range of depths >>>and hence temperature. >> >> I know. >> It all adds up to the plain fact that 'huff puff' theories about cepheids >> that >> rely on radial velocity data will be pretty vague at best. > >Not necessarliy, you can still fit a curve and >get the central shift quite accurately but it >would make it difficult to decide between c or >c+v based on broadening which is what I thought >you were suggesting. I was considering the distribution of radial velocities (component towards an observer) from all points around the hemisphere. see it at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/veldistribution.jpg The horizontal axis represents angle from the pole to the equator. The mode is at 45 degrees. Check it with your own program if you like. It is pretty simple. something like: For n = 1 To 90 proportion = pi * n / 360 * Sin(n * pi / 90) * Cos(n * pi / 180) PSet (5 * n, 300 - (500 * proportion)), RGB(255, 0, 0) Next >>>>>No, it is correspondence of both shapes, both >>>>>amplitudes and the phase, otherwise you have >>>>>too many adjustable parameters for the result >>>>>to have any meaning. You should have all that >>>>>information produced by your model anyway, just >>>>>add the scales so everyone can see. >>>> >>>> It will take time but I can do it. >>> >>>Great. That will allow a serious discussion. >> >> OK. ,,,but the relative magnitudes are markedly dependent on distance and >> radial velocity anyway....and both of these are generally uncertain. > >As long as they have published limits, the results >can be compared. The way forward is for you to write >and debug your program and perhaps get Androcles or >others whom you trust to check it gives the correct >c+v predictions. Then you can go looking for examples >to test. I have now inverted the output graphs so that everything increases upwards. As far as magnitudes are concerned, the best I can do is provide the maximum and minimum linear brightness then express that ratio as a magnitude variation. I can't put an absolute value on it because it is obviously proportional to the lumonosity of the stars themselves. I hope to include that today. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: George Dishman on 27 Aug 2005 06:24 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:ch2vg1ttevsvg2a6iags95hm7gb6ap7698(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:41:03 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253(a)4ax.com... >>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:37:05 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: >><snip - no disagreements> >>>>> I've just written a program to try to work out how an emission line >>>>> would >>>>> appear doppler shift according to the huff puff principle. >>>>> Light from the middle, would have te maximum shift but light from the >>>>> edges >>>>> would have none....because the expansion would be normal to LOS. >>>>> It turns out that there is a sinusoidal distribution of radial >>>>> velocity with >>>>> maximum at 45 degrees. >>>>> This means that a spectral line would appear broadened from zero to >>>>> maximum >>>>> with maximum intensity at 1/root2 from the max. >>>> >>>>Remember there will also be thermal broadening >>>>and that the lines are from a range of depths >>>>and hence temperature. >>> >>> I know. >>> It all adds up to the plain fact that 'huff puff' theories about >>> cepheids >>> that >>> rely on radial velocity data will be pretty vague at best. >> >>Not necessarliy, you can still fit a curve and >>get the central shift quite accurately but it >>would make it difficult to decide between c or >>c+v based on broadening which is what I thought >>you were suggesting. > > I was considering the distribution of radial velocities (component towards > an > observer) from all points around the hemisphere. Yes, I was just curious why you were doing it. > see it at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/veldistribution.jpg > > The horizontal axis represents angle from the pole to the equator. > The mode is at 45 degrees. > Check it with your own program if you like. It is pretty simple. > > something like: > > For n = 1 To 90 > proportion = pi * n / 360 * Sin(n * pi / 90) * Cos(n * pi / 180) > PSet (5 * n, 300 - (500 * proportion)), RGB(255, 0, 0) > Next I would approach it slightly differently and predict what we would observe. We can't resolve by the latitude so I would plot an integrated curve. Here are some initial thoughts, just the math, no plotting and not tested in any way: http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/StarRot.html > I have now inverted the output graphs so that everything increases > upwards. > > As far as magnitudes are concerned, the best I can do is provide the > maximum > and minimum linear brightness then express that ratio as a magnitude > variation. > I can't put an absolute value on it because it is obviously proportional > to the > lumonosity of the stars themselves. Sure, +/- mag relative to the absolute is fine. > I hope to include that today. Cool. George
From: George Dishman on 27 Aug 2005 07:35 "Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message news:nk8ng11b87o6bvuhs6uimn1uasko6p0qrp(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:29:46 +0100, "George Dishman" > <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> > wrote: > >> >>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>news:9lnkg1da8etbdgtjmmknitfpks36406pmv(a)4ax.com... >>> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 21:26:11 +0100, "George Dishman" >>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>> wrote: > >> >>> .. Why not just measure the distance directly by >>> placing a rod between the two points then checking the rod's length >>> against a >>> standard metre stick? >>> >>>> >>>>> The length of space occupied by a rod does not change with speed. The >>>>> proof is >>>>> trivial...as I have pointed out many times. >>>> >>>>I haven't seen that one but all your proofs so >>>>far have simply assumed 3-space and time are >>>>absolute, you haven't offered any proofs at all, >>>>just assertions. >>> >>> George, if you give a rod a short shove, does its length increase or >>> decrease? >> >>The pressure you apply would decrease its >>proper length. > > Why do you introduce irrelevancies, George. You asked a question, I answered accurately. Don't blame me if it's not what you expected. > My use of the term 'short shove' is just a concise way of saying, "a force > is > applied to one end of the rod for a short period of time so as to > accelerate it > to a different speed relative to the initial one. The force is then > released." > The question is, after the force is released, has the rod's length > 'physically' > increased or decreased? The answer to that is of course NO for SR, taking 'physical' length to mean proper length. There is no aether in SR so there is nothing with which the rod could interact to cause a change. > The point of the question is that the 'v' in SR's gamma term will have > both > increased and decreased depending on observer velocity. Therefore the rod > will > have both increased and decreased its length, according to SR. No, according to SR, the rod is unchanged. The change of motion rotates the axes so that_measurements_ of the length by observers not at rest relative to the rod will be changed. You have to learn that SR and GR are about geometric effects on measurements. > Can you see now why the proof is trivial? The rod's length cannot > PHYSICALLY > increase and decrease simultaneously. I agree, that's what SR says. >>> Also see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contraction.exe >> >>Lay a stick on the ground like this: | >> >>Measure its length with two rulers, >>the first like this: \ >> >>and the second like this: / >> >>In each case the method is to draw >>lines from the ends of the stick to the ruler, >>both lines being perpendicular to the ruler. >> >>Now rotate the stick slightly clockwise. The >>measurement on the first ruler decreases while >>that on the second ruler increases at the same >>time, yet the 'proper length' of the stick >>didn't change. Acceleration is a name we give >>to rotation in the x-t plane. > > George I cannot see any point in what you are doing. As you say later, we have very different ways of looking at things. Firstly, I am trying to create some common foundations that we can agree that can form the basis of a conversation. I had hoped you could agree that what I said about the stick and rulers was valid and uncontentious. Secondly I am trying to educate you a little in SR and GR so that the converation is relevant. Both are geometric theories but you seem to be having trouble grasping that and continually talk about "physical" changes that are relevant only to aether theories. >>Incidentally, aether theory says there _is_ a >>physical shrinkage due to the interaction with >>the aether but it is undetectable your program >>doesn't falsify that either because clock >>effects come into play that you disregard. > > Contractions can be REAL if an aether exists. I have pointed that out many > times. > If the 'velocity component' of the 'GR correction' of GPS clocks is > correct, as > claimed by Andersen, then the Earth must have some kind of 'aether' around > it...since the effect is REAL and not illusiory as demanded by SR. No, SR says the effect is real and produced by geometry, not an aether. If you don't understand that, it would be sensible to ask how SR explains it but continually trotting out these incorrect assertions just wastes both our time. That's what I would like to avoid. >>> ... There are techniques now available for accurately >>> measuring the lengths of moving rods. They should give the same answer >>> as >>> that >>> for the rod at rest. >> >>What methods are you thinking of? > > Running its ends past a couple of accurately spaced photocells .... Only tells you the time when the each end passes a cell. Unless you deal with synchronisation of the clocks measuring those times, you are no further forward. >>>>That wasn't my intention, just that "a region" is >>>>unquantified until you measure it. However, you >>>>make a good point, it is fact that there is no >>>>absolute direction in space that allows us to >>>>trade off x and y components. >>> >>> True...but we can rotate a rod in any direction and know it will occupy >>> the >>> same absolute length of space. >> >>If measured by a ruler at rest wrt the rod, that >>is true. If the ruler is moving wrt the rod then >>the axes along which the measurement is made are >>rotated so the measured length changes even though >>the proper length (absolute if you like) doesn't. > > That merely shows that the measuring technique is faulty...if not plainly > stupid. Perhaps, but it is also unavoidable. >>> We can also construct three axes at 'right angles' even if we are >>> hurtling >>> along in a sealed space capsule. >> >>We can. Now think about this observer compared to >>one he hurtles past. Let's say they align the x >>axis with the direction of movement and they use >>the point and time at which they pass as the origin >>of their x and t axes. A vector drawn from (0,0) >>to (0,1), one second later is a unit vector lying >>along the time axis. Each of them says that the >>(0,1) point is located with them of course since >>the x coordinate is zero. Can you see that these >>unit time vectors have an angle between them on >>the x-t plane which depends on the speed? > > > Can you not see that reality can only be determined if the travel time of > human > communication is corrected out? Raead the paragraph again. The only 'communication' if it can be called that is when the clocks are synchronised and they are not separated at that time. > It is not hard to do that. I have described how > with my 'instantaneous universe' concept. > > > If two dolphins performed your experiment under water, using sonar to line > up > the axes, the angle would be very different from your visually determined > one. > What does that prove? The angle is exactly 180 degrees as a given. I think you must have misread the paragraph. >>If >>the time axes have that angle between them and >>each considers the x axis perpendicular to the >>time axis, then the x axes also have that angle >>between them. In other words one observer is using >>axes that are rotated relative to the other's. That >>is the answer to your "Why would you want to do >>that?" earlier, you don't want to but it is >>unavoidable. > > You are talking about an experiment that relies on EM communication, which > we > know requires finite time. Read it again, there is no communication. > The fact that we don't always SEE things precisely as they are doesn't > imply > that the things ARE exactly as we see them....unless one applies the > relativist > logic.... > >> >>> Interestingly, even though rotation direction is not absolute, rotation >>> itself >>> IS absolutely detectable. >> >>What is really interesting is that acceleration >>is also absolute and acceleration is a rotation >>in the x-t plane. > > That is a mathematical concept only. It has no physical meaning. > Obviously, a constant speed is represented on an x-t diagram as a straight > line. An acceleration has a constantly changing gradient. > I don't see how this kind of graphical demonstration can change the nature > of > space and time. That's why it is interesting to find that it does. >>>>Constant, but not single valued. You can trade >>>>space and time by rotating the x-t axes just as >>>>you can trade space-space by rotating the axes >>>>in the x-y plane. >>> >>> It IS single valued....magnitude ONE. >> >>No, it has two values, you just want to call them >>both "one" but I won't let you :-) > > According to you, it has an infininte number of values....because you can > have > an infinite number of observers. > I agree, it can have an infinite number of MEASURED values. Thank you, that has been my point all the weeks. > However, the fact > remains none of those values will change during the course of the > experiment... Yes, and I agree that. We are now in complete agreement :-) > The rotation period has an inherent constancy. Correct. Now see if you can reconstruct your argument so that it only uses the constancy of each measured value without assuming there is only a single value. >>>>No, that's a nice strawman too. I am repeating that >>>>the values measured along an axis depend on the >>>>orientation of that axis. >>> >>> I really don't see the relevance of that argument. >> >>Hopefully the earlier discussion of axes has >>clarified that. > > It has clarified it but makes no more sense. > One doesn't rely on one's eyes in physical experments. None of the discussion related to what is seen, only what is there after such illusion have been eliminated. Have a quick scan through what I wrote again. >>> I know what you are claiming. I am also trying to tell you that it can >>> have >>> only one REAL value no matter how many values it is measured to have. >> >>It has only one "proper" value which is measured >>at rest relative to the object but that translates >>to many measured values on different axes. > > We obviously have a different approach to this whole topic. Definitely, that is the cause of much of the disagreement. I am working to resolve that so that we at least unsderstand each other even if we don't agree. > I say the rotation period occupies a fixed time duration, which doesn't > need to > have a value placed on it to BE a time duration. > I say it is the same time duration in all frames. I know, I am trying to get you to see that that is not something you have proved but remians an assumption. It is the same one that Newton made which stood for centuries so it is far from being obviously wrong, but it is precisely the assumption that has to be discarded in GR so you cannot use it in a falsification of the theory. > You (and Einstein) are claiming that if its duration is measured using > manmade > clocks and if the readings are different for different frames or > circumstances, > then this is an indication that TIME itself must vary according to those > circumstances. Not quite, what SR and GR say is that a duration measured by a clock is really the length of the worldline of the clock between those two events. > You are not even prepared to consider the possibility that the clocks are > not > perfect and might have malfunctioned under the different conditions. Not at all, if the clock didn't show exactly the value corresponding to the length of the worldline then the clock has malfunctioned or is imperfect. > ......Very strange logic if you ask me.... It is the same logic as your except that the expected "correct" value is not the same for all clocks, it depends on the path. It is no different from car odometers showing different distances between locations depending on the route taken, there is still only one correct value for each route and an odometer that shows a different value isn't working properly. >>>>Of course, but you are still trying to define >>>>two different durations as the same 1, or 100 >>>>or whatever number of units. You can't do that >>>>and your attempt at a proof fails as a result. >>> >>> George, an orbit occupies a duration of time. >> >>No, it occupies as many durations as there are >>angles for the time axis for it to be measured >>against. > > You are introducing measurement errors, mainly due to EM's finite travel > time. > You have to eliminate that. No, I am acknowledging that different routes have different lengths. This assumes finite communication time for remote measurements has been eliminated. In your example I did that by proposing a marker in space so there was no separation between the satelite and the marker at the ends of the orbit. The finite communication time from there to the ground is the same for all orbits so doesn't affect the duration measurement. >>> We can try to place a figure on >>> that duration with clocks. >>> The clocks are calibrated according to another time duration >>> standard...in >>> our >>> case it is still basically the Earth's rotation period (although we now >>> have >>> something slightly more accurate). >>> So when you measure Jupiter's orbit with a clock, you are really >>> comparing >>> it >>> with Earth's daily rotation. >>> >>> There has been and there will remain a constant ratio between the >>> periods >>> of >>> Jupiter and the daily rotation of Earth. It is a dimensionless number >>> around >>> 4332.59. >>> Any measured difference in that ratio reveals a measurement error. >>> The obvious conclusion one must reach is that the clocks are not >>> perfect. >> >>... assuming time is absolute. An alternative >>philosophy is that spacetime is absolute (if you >>like) but that time is a measurement made along an >>axis can be rotated by changing the speed of the >>clock which is doing the measuring. > > What I said above makes no such assumption. > The ratio of Earth's rotation period to Jupiter's orbit period is constant > no > matter how anyone wants to measure it, in any frame, with any form of > 'space > time' or whatever. The ratio compares two durations of absolute time. > So if a GPS clock gets a different ratio than the GC then it shows that > the > clock(s) are faulty. Oops, I misread you sorry. You are right, each of the times orbit durations measured by the clocks would differ depending on which clock was used but the ratio would be the same. Yes, if the ratios differed, the clocks would be faulty. >>>>Don't try to tell me about relativity until you >>>>learn it yourself Henri. You forgot that the sign >>>>of the terms differs. The 't' part is "-ct^2" so >>>>it would be 'ict' and have units of imaginary length >>>>whatever that might mean. Time is not the same as >>>>space and the equations always reflect that. I won't >>>>waste my time educating you any more on this, if you >>>>want to understand, study the subject. >>> >>> The time axis is made imaginary to keep it orthogonal. >> >>Yes, empirically we find it has to have the opposite >>sign from spatial dimensions. > > empirically? > Since when was anything in relativity backed up by things 'empirical'? SR was derived from Maxwell's equations which in turn came from 19th century empirical relationships between the voltages and currents in coils and Layden jars. >>> 'c' is actually just a >>> scaling factor. >> >>Very good Henri, I thought that would be beyond >>you. Saying 299792458m = 1s has essentially the >>same meaning as saying that 25.4mm = 1 inch. >> >>> This is a perfectly sound mathematical treatment...but it has no >>> physical >>> significance. >>> Space and Time are not related in any way. >> >>You can't combine furlongs and Fahrenheit, but as >>long as you correct the units using 299792458m=1s, >>you can combine time and space exactly as we can >>combine distance north and distance east using >>Pythagoras, while the negative sign distinguishes >>space from time. That has to be telling us >>something significant about the nature of our >>universe. > > But you are not combining space and time at all. > You are subtracting space, as specified in terms of 'light's time to get > there', from space Euclidean. I specifically chose the word "combining" because it involves not only both addition and subtraction but also taking the square root of the combined squares. > What is the purpose of doing that? Only one, we find that doing so gives a value which is independent of rotation of the axes just as Pythagoras gives the distance between two points regardless of rotation of the x-y axes. > Relativity says, "the length AB does not appear to be AB because it takes > different times for light to go from A to O and from B to O. This implies > that > AB is not a fixed length of space". No it doesn't. What is says is that there is some absolute separation in spacetime between two events (I like to use two supernovae) and that when we measure that, the measured values for the distance and time between the bangs will depend on how we choose to rotate the space and time axes, which we do by changing the speed of the observing instruments. The "ct" factor has nothing to do with how far light would travel in the time, that is an unfortunate and perhaps confusing coincidence. To really understand SR, you need to look at c as only a way of converting between different units of spacetime measurements, exactly like using 25.4 to convert between inches and millimetres. George
From: Henri Wilson on 28 Aug 2005 19:13 On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 12:35:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:nk8ng11b87o6bvuhs6uimn1uasko6p0qrp(a)4ax.com... >> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 20:29:46 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>The pressure you apply would decrease its >>>proper length. >> >> Why do you introduce irrelevancies, George. > >You asked a question, I answered accurately. Don't >blame me if it's not what you expected. > >> My use of the term 'short shove' is just a concise way of saying, "a force >> is >> applied to one end of the rod for a short period of time so as to >> accelerate it >> to a different speed relative to the initial one. The force is then >> released." >> The question is, after the force is released, has the rod's length >> 'physically' >> increased or decreased? > >The answer to that is of course NO for SR, taking >'physical' length to mean proper length. There is >no aether in SR so there is nothing with which the >rod could interact to cause a change. well how is it that the GPS clock correction assumes that the clocks DO physically change with velocity. You can't have it both ways George. > >> The point of the question is that the 'v' in SR's gamma term will have >> both >> increased and decreased depending on observer velocity. Therefore the rod >> will >> have both increased and decreased its length, according to SR. > >No, according to SR, the rod is unchanged. The change >of motion rotates the axes so that_measurements_ of >the length by observers not at rest relative to the >rod will be changed. You have to learn that SR and >GR are about geometric effects on measurements. this 'rotation ' business is just more nonsense. A single observer will SEE a rotation but there is no rotation in an observer's frame. > >> Can you see now why the proof is trivial? The rod's length cannot >> PHYSICALLY >> increase and decrease simultaneously. > >I agree, that's what SR says. ......but it isn't what SR DOES.... SR requires that the changes are REAL PHYSICAL changes. When you get down to the physics behind the maths, it is no different from aether theory. >>>> Also see: www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/contraction.exe >>> >>>Lay a stick on the ground like this: | >>> >>>Measure its length with two rulers, >>>the first like this: \ >>> >>>and the second like this: / >>> >>>In each case the method is to draw >>>lines from the ends of the stick to the ruler, >>>both lines being perpendicular to the ruler. >>> >>>Now rotate the stick slightly clockwise. The >>>measurement on the first ruler decreases while >>>that on the second ruler increases at the same >>>time, yet the 'proper length' of the stick >>>didn't change. Acceleration is a name we give >>>to rotation in the x-t plane. >> >> George I cannot see any point in what you are doing. > >As you say later, we have very different ways >of looking at things. Firstly, I am trying to >create some common foundations that we can >agree that can form the basis of a conversation. >I had hoped you could agree that what I said >about the stick and rulers was valid and >uncontentious. > >Secondly I am trying to educate you a little in >SR and GR so that the converation is relevant. >Both are geometric theories but you seem to be >having trouble grasping that and continually >talk about "physical" changes that are relevant >only to aether theories. George, I don't wish to understand a theory that is based on wrong assumptions and which does absolutely nothing to further the cause of physics. Do you really believe that Einstein's GR explains why we don't fall off the Earth? We are no accelerating radially outwards!!! You can see that quite clearly if you take a look from the moon. > >>>Incidentally, aether theory says there _is_ a >>>physical shrinkage due to the interaction with >>>the aether but it is undetectable your program >>>doesn't falsify that either because clock >>>effects come into play that you disregard. >> >> Contractions can be REAL if an aether exists. I have pointed that out many >> times. >> If the 'velocity component' of the 'GR correction' of GPS clocks is >> correct, as >> claimed by Andersen, then the Earth must have some kind of 'aether' around >> it...since the effect is REAL and not illusiory as demanded by SR. > >No, SR says the effect is real and produced by >geometry, not an aether. If you don't understand >that, it would be sensible to ask how SR explains >it but continually trotting out these incorrect >assertions just wastes both our time. That's what >I would like to avoid. SR invents its own geometry to make SR consistent and seemingly correct. It is an exercise in circular logic, nothing else. Tell me why my 'constant density theory' is any worse that relativity. >> Running its ends past a couple of accurately spaced photocells .... > >Only tells you the time when the each end passes >a cell. Unless you deal with synchronisation of >the clocks measuring those times, you are no >further forward. It is easy to synch the clocks at rest. Just make tAB=tBA. Einstein was right on that one...even if for the wrong reasons. >>>>>That wasn't my intention, just that "a region" is >>>>>unquantified until you measure it. However, you >>>>>make a good point, it is fact that there is no >>>>>absolute direction in space that allows us to >>>>>trade off x and y components. >>>> >>>> True...but we can rotate a rod in any direction and know it will occupy >>>> the >>>> same absolute length of space. >>> >>>If measured by a ruler at rest wrt the rod, that >>>is true. If the ruler is moving wrt the rod then >>>the axes along which the measurement is made are >>>rotated so the measured length changes even though >>>the proper length (absolute if you like) doesn't. >> >> That merely shows that the measuring technique is faulty...if not plainly >> stupid. > >Perhaps, but it is also unavoidable. > >>>> We can also construct three axes at 'right angles' even if we are >>>> hurtling >>>> along in a sealed space capsule. >>> >>>We can. Now think about this observer compared to >>>one he hurtles past. Let's say they align the x >>>axis with the direction of movement and they use >>>the point and time at which they pass as the origin >>>of their x and t axes. A vector drawn from (0,0) >>>to (0,1), one second later is a unit vector lying >>>along the time axis. Each of them says that the >>>(0,1) point is located with them of course since >>>the x coordinate is zero. Can you see that these >>>unit time vectors have an angle between them on >>>the x-t plane which depends on the speed? >> >> >> Can you not see that reality can only be determined if the travel time of >> human >> communication is corrected out? > >Raead the paragraph again. The only 'communication' >if it can be called that is when the clocks are >synchronised and they are not separated at that time. > >> It is not hard to do that. I have described how >> with my 'instantaneous universe' concept. >> >> >> If two dolphins performed your experiment under water, using sonar to line >> up >> the axes, the angle would be very different from your visually determined >> one. >> What does that prove? > >The angle is exactly 180 degrees as a given. I think >you must have misread the paragraph. Plotting events in x-t doesn't change 3D physical space. I use grids of synched clocks to measure everything. That way, all frames are equal and I don't have to correct for light travel time. > >>>If >>>the time axes have that angle between them and >>>each considers the x axis perpendicular to the >>>time axis, then the x axes also have that angle >>>between them. In other words one observer is using >>>axes that are rotated relative to the other's. That >>>is the answer to your "Why would you want to do >>>that?" earlier, you don't want to but it is >>>unavoidable. >> >> You are talking about an experiment that relies on EM communication, which >> we >> know requires finite time. > >Read it again, there is no communication. You plot different angle on and x-t diagram. So what? > >> The fact that we don't always SEE things precisely as they are doesn't >> imply >> that the things ARE exactly as we see them....unless one applies the >> relativist >> logic.... >> >>> >>>> Interestingly, even though rotation direction is not absolute, rotation >>>> itself >>>> IS absolutely detectable. >>> >>>What is really interesting is that acceleration >>>is also absolute and acceleration is a rotation >>>in the x-t plane. >> >> That is a mathematical concept only. It has no physical meaning. >> Obviously, a constant speed is represented on an x-t diagram as a straight >> line. An acceleration has a constantly changing gradient. >> I don't see how this kind of graphical demonstration can change the nature >> of >> space and time. > >That's why it is interesting to find that it does. .....and when was that ever FOUND? > >>>>>Constant, but not single valued. You can trade >>>>>space and time by rotating the x-t axes just as >>>>>you can trade space-space by rotating the axes >>>>>in the x-y plane. >>>> >>>> It IS single valued....magnitude ONE. >>> >>>No, it has two values, you just want to call them >>>both "one" but I won't let you :-) >> >> According to you, it has an infininte number of values....because you can >> have >> an infinite number of observers. >> I agree, it can have an infinite number of MEASURED values. > >Thank you, that has been my point all the weeks. It can only have an infinite number if light is used directly. It will have only one value in all frames if my 'grid of clocks' is used. > >> However, the fact >> remains none of those values will change during the course of the >> experiment... > >Yes, and I agree that. We are now in complete >agreement :-) No we are not. You have lost me here. > >> The rotation period has an inherent constancy. > >Correct. Now see if you can reconstruct your argument >so that it only uses the constancy of each measured >value without assuming there is only a single value. I don't see the connection between 'constancy' and 'single valued'. > >>>>>No, that's a nice strawman too. I am repeating that >>>>>the values measured along an axis depend on the >>>>>orientation of that axis. >>>> >>>> I really don't see the relevance of that argument. >>> >>>Hopefully the earlier discussion of axes has >>>clarified that. >> >> It has clarified it but makes no more sense. >> One doesn't rely on one's eyes in physical experments. > >None of the discussion related to what is seen, only >what is there after such illusion have been eliminated. >Have a quick scan through what I wrote again. > >>>> I know what you are claiming. I am also trying to tell you that it can >>>> have >>>> only one REAL value no matter how many values it is measured to have. >>> >>>It has only one "proper" value which is measured >>>at rest relative to the object but that translates >>>to many measured values on different axes. >> >> We obviously have a different approach to this whole topic. > >Definitely, that is the cause of much of the >disagreement. I am working to resolve that so >that we at least unsderstand each other even >if we don't agree. > >> I say the rotation period occupies a fixed time duration, which doesn't >> need to >> have a value placed on it to BE a time duration. >> I say it is the same time duration in all frames. > >I know, I am trying to get you to see that that >is not something you have proved but remians an >assumption. It is the same one that Newton made >which stood for centuries so it is far from being >obviously wrong, but it is precisely the assumption >that has to be discarded in GR so you cannot use >it in a falsification of the theory. > >> You (and Einstein) are claiming that if its duration is measured using >> manmade >> clocks and if the readings are different for different frames or >> circumstances, >> then this is an indication that TIME itself must vary according to those >> circumstances. > >Not quite, what SR and GR say is that a duration >measured by a clock is really the length of the >worldline of the clock between those two events. it says that time itself is affecterd by the spatial path taken by a moving object. That is totally meaningless. >> You are not even prepared to consider the possibility that the clocks are >> not >> perfect and might have malfunctioned under the different conditions. > >Not at all, if the clock didn't show exactly the >value corresponding to the length of the worldline >then the clock has malfunctioned or is imperfect. You make a wrong logical assumption here. What is a worldline? A straightline between any two points on a space/time graph. If you draw any other path on that graph between the two end points, how does that change the time coordinates there? > >> ......Very strange logic if you ask me.... > >It is the same logic as your except that the >expected "correct" value is not the same for all >clocks, it depends on the path. It is no >different from car odometers showing different >distances between locations depending on the >route taken, there is still only one correct >value for each route and an odometer that shows >a different value isn't working properly. .....but as I have pointed out many times before, the car clocks still show exactly the same times no matter what routes the cars take. There no x-t analogy for this kind of x-y effect... If you accept that there are three time dimensions then you can talk about 'taking different routes in time'. >>>>>Of course, but you are still trying to define >>>>>two different durations as the same 1, or 100 >>>>>or whatever number of units. You can't do that >>>>>and your attempt at a proof fails as a result. >>>> >>>> George, an orbit occupies a duration of time. >>> >>>No, it occupies as many durations as there are >>>angles for the time axis for it to be measured >>>against. >> >> You are introducing measurement errors, mainly due to EM's finite travel >> time. >> You have to eliminate that. > >No, I am acknowledging that different routes >have different lengths. This assumes finite >communication time for remote measurements >has been eliminated. In your example I did >that by proposing a marker in space so there >was no separation between the satelite and >the marker at the ends of the orbit. The >finite communication time from there to >the ground is the same for all orbits so >doesn't affect the duration measurement. You seem to have difficulty understanding the difference between path length and the actual distance between two points. If two cars take different routes to go from A to B, they travel different distances... BUT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN POINTS A AND B HAS NOT CHANGED. The same applies in the x-t case. It matters not how the path is drawn, the two end points have the same coordinates. >>>> We can try to place a figure on >>>> that duration with clocks. >>>> The clocks are calibrated according to another time duration >>>> standard...in >>>> our >>>> case it is still basically the Earth's rotation period (although we now >>>> have >>>> something slightly more accurate). >>>> So when you measure Jupiter's orbit with a clock, you are really >>>> comparing >>>> it >>>> with Earth's daily rotation. >>>> >>>> There has been and there will remain a constant ratio between the >>>> periods >>>> of >>>> Jupiter and the daily rotation of Earth. It is a dimensionless number >>>> around >>>> 4332.59. >>>> Any measured difference in that ratio reveals a measurement error. >>>> The obvious conclusion one must reach is that the clocks are not >>>> perfect. >>> >>>... assuming time is absolute. An alternative >>>philosophy is that spacetime is absolute (if you >>>like) but that time is a measurement made along an >>>axis can be rotated by changing the speed of the >>>clock which is doing the measuring. >> >> What I said above makes no such assumption. >> The ratio of Earth's rotation period to Jupiter's orbit period is constant >> no >> matter how anyone wants to measure it, in any frame, with any form of >> 'space >> time' or whatever. The ratio compares two durations of absolute time. >> So if a GPS clock gets a different ratio than the GC then it shows that >> the >> clock(s) are faulty. > >Oops, I misread you sorry. You are right, each of >the times orbit durations measured by the clocks >would differ depending on which clock was used but >the ratio would be the same. Yes, if the ratios >differed, the clocks would be faulty. > >>>>>Don't try to tell me about relativity until you >>>>>learn it yourself Henri. You forgot that the sign >>>>>of the terms differs. The 't' part is "-ct^2" so >>>>>it would be 'ict' and have units of imaginary length >>>>>whatever that might mean. Time is not the same as >>>>>space and the equations always reflect that. I won't >>>>>waste my time educating you any more on this, if you >>>>>want to understand, study the subject. >>>> >>>> The time axis is made imaginary to keep it orthogonal. >>> >>>Yes, empirically we find it has to have the opposite >>>sign from spatial dimensions. >> >> empirically? >> Since when was anything in relativity backed up by things 'empirical'? > >SR was derived from Maxwell's equations which in >turn came from 19th century empirical relationships >between the voltages and currents in coils and >Layden jars. SR was derived from the mistake that a vertical light beam moving at c in one frame becomes a diagonal light beam moving at c in another. Einstein obviously spent too much time watching falling raindrops through the windows of moving trains. >>> >>>You can't combine furlongs and Fahrenheit, but as >>>long as you correct the units using 299792458m=1s, >>>you can combine time and space exactly as we can >>>combine distance north and distance east using >>>Pythagoras, while the negative sign distinguishes >>>space from time. That has to be telling us >>>something significant about the nature of our >>>universe. >> >> But you are not combining space and time at all. >> You are subtracting space, as specified in terms of 'light's time to get >> there', from space Euclidean. > >I specifically chose the word "combining" because >it involves not only both addition and subtraction >but also taking the square root of the combined >squares. > >> What is the purpose of doing that? > >Only one, we find that doing so gives a value >which is independent of rotation of the axes >just as Pythagoras gives the distance between >two points regardless of rotation of the x-y >axes. But in that case, tau would be constant. CMIIW, but 'tau' represents the distance derived from subtracting 'ct' from the Euclidean length between two points. What is its physical significance? Does it have any? I doubt it. >> Relativity says, "the length AB does not appear to be AB because it takes >> different times for light to go from A to O and from B to O. This implies >> that >> AB is not a fixed length of space". > >No it doesn't. What is says is that there is >some absolute separation in spacetime between >two events (I like to use two supernovae) and >that when we measure that, the measured values >for the distance and time between the bangs >will depend on how we choose to rotate the >space and time axes, which we do by changing >the speed of the observing instruments. The mistake is that it assumes spacetime is a physical entity rather than a mathematical convenience. It then uses incorrect assumptions to come up with completely faulty answers. >The "ct" factor has nothing to do with how far >light would travel in the time, that is an >unfortunate and perhaps confusing coincidence. > >To really understand SR, you need to look at c >as only a way of converting between different >units of spacetime measurements, exactly like >using 25.4 to convert between inches and >millimetres.] ......but the space or time interval between any two points on a space/time diagram does not depend on the path taken. Why should it? > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong.
From: Henri Wilson on 29 Aug 2005 01:55
On Sat, 27 Aug 2005 11:24:07 +0100, "George Dishman" <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> wrote: > >"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >news:ch2vg1ttevsvg2a6iags95hm7gb6ap7698(a)4ax.com... >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 15:41:03 +0100, "George Dishman" >> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >> wrote: >> >>> >>>"Henri Wilson" <H@..> wrote in message >>>news:of7ng1pt0580h8mi08hn1uj1e8l3i30253(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:37:05 +0100, "George Dishman" >>>> <george(a)briar.demon.co.uk> >>>> wrote: >>><snip - no disagreements> >>>>>> I've just written a program to try to work out how an emission line >>>>>> would >>>>>> appear doppler shift according to the huff puff principle. >>>>>> Light from the middle, would have te maximum shift but light from the >>>>>> edges >>>>>> would have none....because the expansion would be normal to LOS. >>>>>> It turns out that there is a sinusoidal distribution of radial >>>>>> velocity with >>>>>> maximum at 45 degrees. >>>>>> This means that a spectral line would appear broadened from zero to >>>>>> maximum >>>>>> with maximum intensity at 1/root2 from the max. >>>>> >>>>>Remember there will also be thermal broadening >>>>>and that the lines are from a range of depths >>>>>and hence temperature. >>>> >>>> I know. >>>> It all adds up to the plain fact that 'huff puff' theories about >>>> cepheids >>>> that >>>> rely on radial velocity data will be pretty vague at best. >>> >>>Not necessarliy, you can still fit a curve and >>>get the central shift quite accurately but it >>>would make it difficult to decide between c or >>>c+v based on broadening which is what I thought >>>you were suggesting. >> >> I was considering the distribution of radial velocities (component towards >> an >> observer) from all points around the hemisphere. > >Yes, I was just curious why you were doing it. > >> see it at: http://www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/veldistribution.jpg >> >> The horizontal axis represents angle from the pole to the equator. >> The mode is at 45 degrees. >> Check it with your own program if you like. It is pretty simple. >> >> something like: >> >> For n = 1 To 90 >> proportion = pi * n / 360 * Sin(n * pi / 90) * Cos(n * pi / 180) >> PSet (5 * n, 300 - (500 * proportion)), RGB(255, 0, 0) >> Next > >I would approach it slightly differently and predict >what we would observe. We can't resolve by the latitude >so I would plot an integrated curve. Here are some initial >thoughts, just the math, no plotting and not tested in >any way: > >http://www.briar.demon.co.uk/Henri/StarRot.html That's for a rotating star. I have calculated the distribution for an EXPANDING star. . > >> I have now inverted the output graphs so that everything increases >> upwards. >> >> As far as magnitudes are concerned, the best I can do is provide the >> maximum >> and minimum linear brightness then express that ratio as a magnitude >> variation. >> I can't put an absolute value on it because it is obviously proportional >> to the >> lumonosity of the stars themselves. > >Sure, +/- mag relative to the absolute is fine. > >> I hope to include that today. > >Cool. haven't had time but will get there soon. > >George > HW. www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm Sometimes I feel like a complete failure. The most useful thing I have ever done is prove Einstein wrong. |